Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1004 (2026)

Criminal use of electronic weapon

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Except as provided in subsection 4, a person is guilty of criminal use of an electronic weapon if the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly uses an electronic weapon upon any other person.

[PL 2005, c. 264, §1 (NEW).]

2. As used in this section, "electronic weapon" means a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to have a disabling effect upon human beings.

[PL 2005, c. 264, §1 (NEW).]

3. Criminal use of an electronic weapon is a Class D crime.

[PL 2005, c. 264, §1 (NEW).]

4. This section does not apply to the use of an electronic weapon by:

A. A law enforcement officer, transport officer, corrections officer or corrections supervisor engaged in the performance of the law enforcement officer's, transport officer's, corrections officer's or corrections supervisor's public duty if the officer's or corrections supervisor's appointing authority has authorized such use of an electronic weapon; or [PL 2025, c. 429, §8 (AMD).]

B. A person using an electronic weapon when that use is for the purpose of:

(1) Defending that person or a 3rd person as authorized under section 108, subsection 2; or

(2) Defending that person's dwelling place as authorized under section 104, subsections 3 and 4. [PL 2009, c. 336, §12 (AMD).]

[PL 2025, c. 429, §8 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 2005, c. 264, §1 (NEW). PL 2009, c. 336, §12 (AMD). PL 2025, c. 429, §8 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2010–2019 · leading case: State v. Murphy, 2010 ME 140 (Me. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Murphy, 2010 ME 140 (Me. 2010). “§ 751-B(1)(C) (2009); 1 criminal use of an *699 electronic weapon (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 1004(1) (2009); and two counts of cruelty to animals (Class D), 17 M.”

State of Maine v. Christopher Todd Hall, 2019 ME 126 (Me. 2019). · cites it 2× “[¶32] The existence of a separate crime—not charged here—for intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly using an electronic weapon on another person, 17-A M.R.S. § 1004(1) (2018), does not preclude the jury’s finding that the stun cane as Hall used it was a dangerous weapon.”

State of Maine v. Christopher Todd Hall, 2019 ME 126 (Me. 2019). · cites it 2× “[¶32] The existence of a separate crime—not charged here—for intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly using an electronic weapon on another person, 17-A M.R.S. § 1004(1) (2018), does not preclude the jury’s finding that the stun cane as Hall used it was a dangerous weapon.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1004(1) — 3 cases

State v. Murphy, 2010 ME 140 (Me. 2010). “§ 751-B(1)(C) (2009); 1 criminal use of an *699 electronic weapon (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 1004(1) (2009); and two counts of cruelty to animals (Class D), 17 M.”

State of Maine v. Christopher Todd Hall, 2019 ME 126 (Me. 2019). “[¶32] The existence of a separate crime—not charged here—for intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly using an electronic weapon on another person, 17-A M.R.S. § 1004(1) (2018), does not preclude the jury’s finding that the stun cane as Hall used it was a dangerous weapon.”

State of Maine v. Christopher Todd Hall, 2019 ME 126 (Me. 2019). “[¶32] The existence of a separate crime—not charged here—for intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly using an electronic weapon on another person, 17-A M.R.S. § 1004(1) (2018), does not preclude the jury’s finding that the stun cane as Hall used it was a dangerous weapon.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1004(2) — 2 cases

State of Maine v. Christopher Todd Hall, 2019 ME 126 (Me. 2019). “[¶32] The existence of a separate crime—not charged here—for intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly using an electronic weapon on another person, 17-A M.R.S. § 1004(1) (2018), does not preclude the jury’s finding that the stun cane as Hall used it was a dangerous weapon.”

State of Maine v. Christopher Todd Hall, 2019 ME 126 (Me. 2019). “[¶32] The existence of a separate crime—not charged here—for intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly using an electronic weapon on another person, 17-A M.R.S. § 1004(1) (2018), does not preclude the jury’s finding that the stun cane as Hall used it was a dangerous weapon.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.